Modern wars

[Agiel]

 

But if the aiming software is so accurate why does it NEED two guns pointing in the same direction?

I guess it needs two guns because the anti aircraft cannons had multiple barrels. Heat. With two guns you can cut the firing rate in half for each gun and you get less barrel heat that totally screws up your accuracy while pumping as much lead downrange as a single cannon that overheats in no time at all. There is also less barrel wear. I imagine you can also use different ammunition in each gun, like API in one gun and HE in the other one.

 

....has a rapid cannon, missiles, AND a heavy mortar/gun/launcher thingy.

I thought the launcher thingy is actually the rocket launcher thingy. Its a mortar?

 

 It's a low-pressure 100m gun firing HE-frag and HESH rounds, whose trajectories are more akin to an artillery round than a tank shell, and was primarily intended to be used against enemy fortifications and ATGM teams. A 100mm ATGM can be fired out of it as well. However, the Soviets and the armies of its successor states have expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with the performance of the 2A7 autocannon used by the BMP-2 and BMP-3 (the 25mm Bushmaster, 30mm  RARDEN, and the 40mm Bofors L70  leave it in the dust).

Edited October 19, 2013 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

Refs on those dissatisfactions would be very helpful. If you have time.

[Agiel]

My knowledge of their complaints came second-hand from someone on another forum who is a bit more knowledgeable of former Soviet and Russian equipment than I am. That said, according to the folks at eSim Games who made Steel Beasts (which is the most authoritative source on modern armoured warfare in the simulation space), their estimates of its capabilities corroborates this complaint; the 30mm 2A42/2A72 firing the latest armour piercing round is capable of penetrating 60mm RHAe at a combat range of 0-1800m, where the RARDEN 30mm and the Bushmaster 25mm firing its contemporary rounds is capable of penetrating 100mm RHAe, and the Swedish Bofors 40mm L70 mounted on their CV-90 is capable of penetrating 140mm RHAe.

 

Source: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

 

Should be noted that this is data that is plugged into the simulation based off of estimates triangulated from a variety of other sources and real-life testing data wherever it can be found. But for argument's sake many accept this as the most authoritative (if not necessarily scientific) collection of armament and ammunition performance data on the web short of somehow collecting all these vehicles in one place and testing them in a sterile environment.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

So is it just a penetration issue? Your post sounded to me like there were others also.

[Agiel]

So is it just a penetration issue? Your post sounded to me like there were others also.

Also with muzzle velocity and maximum effective range as well. The chart in the link provides that data. However it's my belief it's more the fault of the ammunition rather than the gun design being inherently bad; in Soviet times when you have to make enough ammo to make sure a bajillion of those iron coffins are equipped for war you have to skimp on quality somewhere. 

 

And don't know if it's really relevant, but while reports that the autoloaders for Soviet tanks starting with the T-64 had a habit of literally costing an arm and a leg of a hapless crewman were overblown, the autoloader for the BMP-1 is said to have lived up to that reputation with fingers.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

I met a Scandinavian officer who said that the ejection of shell casings certainly caused injuries. To supporting infantry.

 

Nothing quite like a tank design which actively discourages infantry cooperation.

[Agiel]

Not only that. While the Soviet philosophy that emphasised low profile designs does mean vehicles that present a harder target for anti-tank gunners, it also means their armament is a hazard for its own dismounts. There were cases in exercises using live ammo where an unfortunate Motor Rifleman caught a round when he charged in front of the vehicle giving him covering fire (the turret for the BMP series of IFVs is about chest-level for a full-sized man). The applique ERA bricks a la Kontakt-1 also precludes infantry support working in close concert with tanks as well, though this was somewhat remedied with integrated ERA such as Kontakt-5.

[Walsingham]

There's also the fact that even dwarvish fellows like me have trouble getting into and out of the bloody things. I'm rarely troubled by claustrophobia, but sitting in the driving seat of a Soviet tank is like wearing a wetsuit made of hammers, inside a dustbin. A dustbin that is slightly too small. Inside another tank.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Walsingham

[Agiel]

And ammo and accompanying propellant was *everywhere* inside the tank. The commander and gunner may as well have used them as chairs:

 

 

And unlike the Abrams* or the Challenger 2 inside which there are considerable safety measure to ensure against catastrophic explosions, this was another area where the Soviets skimped on as many Iraqis, Syrians, and even Russians fighting in Chechnya discovered the hard way. In addition Soviet tanks had utterly atrocious reverse gears(4 kph top speed in reverse), such that the first item on the Czech armoured corps' agenda after the Iron Curtain fell was to contract the British and the Americans to install a new engine and transmission into their T-72s (though I suppose that had the effect of letting Soviet crews know that in case the general's orders weren't quite clear, *forward* was the direction they were supposed to go in).

 

*The Leopard 2 has an identical turret arrangement as the Abrams in regards to ready ammo, however the semi-ready rack is in the hull and is exposed to the crew. However, as the Leo was designed virtually from the ground up to fight from prepared defenses and in hull-down, this isn't nearly as much of an issue as one might think.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

Stumbled across this, this morning. Thought you chaps might enjoy it.

 

French Armor at Dien Bien Phu.

[obyknven]

And unlike the Abrams* or the Challenger 2 inside which there are considerable safety measure

 Challenger 2... can penetrated by RPG hit into frontal armor

Abrams... flammable radiactive tank with weak armor (also can be penetrated from front side)

Both tanks traditionally used against unarmed unskilled medieval peasants...  safety...

 

 

All these cool stories about invulnerable NATO tanks it's just war propaganda - soldiers must have no fear when generals send them to death.

[Agiel]

Re: Challenger 2 RPG penetration:

 

...which upon closer inspection did not in fact hit the frontal armour, which as quite possibly the most well-protected tank yet designed is simply impossible to penetrate with anything short of much heavier ATGMs fired from aircraft, but had shrapnel go through the lower glacis and underbelly of the tank, where pretty much *all* tanks have less armour. Said problem has since been rectified by the British by simply retrofitting even more armour in these areas and no other Challenger has been reported lost ever since.

 

And while the T-72Ms the Iraq army used are most definitely a different beast from even the T-72B, the reputation of the Abrams in a gunfight is certainly well-deserved:

 

 

M1A2 SEP Abrams Armour LOS:

 

T-80U Armour LOS:

 

120mm M256 firing M-829A3 sabot -

Penetration: 850mm RHAe

Maximum effective range: 4000m

 

125mm 2A46 firing 3BM42 sabot -

Penetration: 580mm RHAe

Maximum effective range: 3300m

 

125mm 2A46 firing 3BM42M sabot (cannot be used by the T-72 series as a result of its specific autoloader)-

Penetration: 650mm RHAe

Maximum effective range: 3500m.

[Walsingham]

I'm going to resist the trolling for once. Anyone who wants to believe this bollocks about us having lost lots of Chally2s is welcome to.

[obyknven]

Agiel

Civilian detected.

Dude, you again posted rude propaganda. Real specifications  of tanks and ammo are secreted, all  these cool pictures is just lie.

Just compare photo of this destroyed M1A2 tank with your pic.

Do you notice huge hole in frontal part of turret? OMG, most protected part of frontal armor (by your pic) are penetrated! This is impossible!

But this is reality and you can  throw your propaganda posters in trash now. (I even don't want explain how incorrect is comparison between tank from 1985 year and tank from 1999 year, its just yet another propagandistic trick, but in this multi-layered lie its not important  )

 

Fairy tales about small amount of destroyed Nato tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan it's yet another propagandistic trick. In first Iraq war NATO destroy Iraqis army by artillery and aviation, in second Iraq  war Iraqis army surrender without fight.  Also you can noticed lack of antitank weapons  If you google modern videos of Mujahideen attacks against NATO forces, they are just untrained poorly equipped peasants and obviously they cant destroy tanks. 

 

How vulnerable modern NATO tanks you can see in Lebanon war (2006), when IDF lost in month 48 tanks Merkava's MK2 (18 of them completely destroyed ) during fight against  well trained ( and perfectly equipped by antitank weapons ) guerrilla-fighters.  And don't forget, IDF is best trained Western army and their Merkava's probably is most protected tanks in the world.

 

After this Russian loses in 2 year long and bloody First Civil Chechen war don't look so big (total lose 200 tank, 69 of them destroyed completely, 2 of them before Battle of Grozny, 29 during  Battle of Grozny and 38 after this, many of these tanks belongs to obsolete models (Internal Army traditionally worst equipped) and Russians often even don't evacuate and repair them). 

 

In other words all modern tanks have almost equal specifications.  All these propagandistic myth about superiority of western tanks is just stupid, in such case nobody don't buy Russian weapons(but many countries do it, even NATO allies) and  Russians just steal all technologies and begin produce Abrams-style tanks for yourself, but again, nor Russia nor China don't do it.   

[Walsingham]

Oby

Danger! Walty civilian detected.

 

Impact points on the outside of the hull do not automatically translate to damaging effects inside the hull.

 

Johnson Beharry won his VC driving a Warrior IFV that was hit by many of your super-powerful Sov designed RPGs. And Warrior is just an IFV, not an MBT.

 

Your walty youtube videos show jihadists hitting MBTs like Abrams. A great many of these videos are edited so you don't see the tank rolling calmly out the other side of the fireball.

 

Sorry if this upsets your supremacist fantasy, old boy. Perhaps you should try learning one or two things from somewhere other than inside your own head.

[Agiel]

...and eSim Games, the developers of Steel Beasts has been contracted by the Australian, Danish, Swedish, and Czech militaries as well as West Point faculty to produce realistic simulation software to train tank gunners, commanders, and platoon leaders. And while tanks like the M1A2 and the Leopard 2 are very impressive machines, it isn't difficult to come across information to help one make an educated guess about their true capabilities and this information isn't as terribly sensitive as say, what the avionics are like in a Eurofighter Typhoon. It's why there are extremely realistic simulators of the F-16, the A-10C, and the Ka-50 are out there for civilians to toy around with. The capabilities of the T-80U are also quite well-known by western militaries; the British were able to purchase examples for their own testing purposes (passing it on to the US and Germany as well) and the Russians gave some to South Korea to pay off debts from Soviet times.

 

Is there some variance in the data they have? To be sure. As I've said, the only way they can get solid numbers is if they managed to gather all those vehicles in one sterile testing environment. Is it as big as say plus or minus 250mm RHAe for a given value? Doubtful.

[obyknven]

USS Chancellorsville protected by last version Aegis SAM(Baseline 9) damaged by drone attack (BQM-74 "missile") during  Combat System Ship Qualification Trials.

 

 

In real war after such hit by missile ship can be completely destroyed or heavily damaged.  It's again about difference between NATO military propaganda and reality.

[Walsingham]

Propaganda is when no-one shows the pictures.

 

BTW, your acting standards have slipped even further. You can't just drop prepositions. You sound like a Dr Who villain.

[Agiel]

The Phalanx is a completely autonomous CIWS that is generally turned off in proximity of friendly aircraft. Such an incident is no more embarrassing than a West German student pilot penetrating Soviet air space in a Cessna and landing in Red Square:

 

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/rust.html?c=y&page=1

[Monte Carlo]

Many moons ago I was a mod on the BGDungeon forums.

 

We had a very similar troll to oby there. Not the whole Russian schtick, but a carefully-constructed pseudo-identity nonetheless.

 

After a year of top notch trolling he came clean and admitted the whole thing was part of his post-grad thesis (psychology) in internet behaviour (I suppose in 2000 / 2001 that might have been rather novel).

 

I wonder what Oby's story is?

[Hurlshort]

Does anyone else prefer the Lord of Flies version of these trolls?  Oby seems to be appealing to the lowest common denominator by just throwing up a bunch of pictures with a little text.  It makes me miss the essays of LoF, for sure.

[Walsingham]

Does anyone else prefer the Lord of Flies version of these trolls?  Oby seems to be appealing to the lowest common denominator by just throwing up a bunch of pictures with a little text.  It makes me miss the essays of LoF, for sure.

 

It's lazier, I'll grant you.

 

But do I prefer the lengthy diatribes on the arbitrary nature of human rights, the breathy anticipation of revolutionary slaughter, and the overweening intellectual airs and graces? 

 

Not so much.

[Monte Carlo]

LoF was, on an intellectual level, a disgusting fascist.

[obyknven]

WRONG! USA IS STONK! 

Dude, they tested ship defence and launch target BQM-74 for this, ship try intercept this "missile", but fail. As result target hit a ship and make hole in the hull.

 

If you don't trust me read here

http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/6454610/pac-3-sme-missiles-on-target

- this is successfull test when BQM-74 targets are destroyed by SAM defence

 

Conclusion: Most modern NATO ship defence don't intercept subsonic target - it's obvious fail. After this Russian expectations about results of combat between 1(!) Russian ship ( old Soviet monster with huge amount of  hypersonic missiles)

 

vs US Carrier battle group not looks so fantastic. In real war US navy just repeat fate of Georgian fleet.

[Walsingham]

Russians dont use artillery in Georgian war and almost don't use aviation, only tanks and infantry, only fair combat.

 

 

I can't wait to see how you're going to explain this.